Litigation in the realm of copyright infringement is not uncommon in the sports and media spheres, but this case is all about drawing attention to a company – using litigation for marketing purposes.  See, Andrew Luck hasn’t really done anything worthy of being sued.  The Leaf Trading Card company used a 2008 image of Luck playing at the Army All-American Bowl for part of their trading card set.  In turn, Luck sent a cease and desist letter advising Leaf Trading Cards to immediately stop using his image, which they did not have the permission to use.

Nothing wrong with that.  However, just days before the NFL Draft, Leaf Trading Cards Company sued Luck in an effort to allow the judicial system to resolve the dispute.  Leaf Trading Cards definitely has the right to do this – they can ask a court for a declaratory judgment that states they (Leaf Trading Cards) have the right to use Luck’s image on their trading cards.  However, this is not the typical way these cases arise or are resolved.  Typically, the party seeking to use the image ignores a cease and desist letter and pursues its course of action, particularly if they feel they are on solid legal ground.  This is so because if you truly feel you are the party who is not committing any wrong, than you would be justified in defending yourself and would be able to shift the burden of your legal fees onto the losing party.  This is the nature of our adversarial legal system – we make people who want to sue us for some reason, prove that they actually have a reason to sue us.

But two days before the Draft, you must be thinking how do we increase sales by taking advantage of the Draft.  This is pretty clear – and even I have received numerous offers from pizza companies for Draft day pizza deals – of course you up your chance to sell an item by tying it into a bigger item or event.  And really this is not so bad, its opportunistic and not a very sophisticated marketing move, but I think there lies a bigger problem with all of this… and that is with the attorney representing Leaf Trading Cards.

In fact, it was Leaf Trading Company’s attorney who initially leaked the information of this lawsuit through a press release (you can read the quote by clicking the link above to go to the yahoo news story).  As an attorney, I am highly familiar with the stereotypes of lawyers.  One I hear most often is that we are responsible for the over litigious nature of people in the U.S.  Quite simply, the reason we get this stereotype has a lot to do with attorney’s who actively take on cases for the sole purpose of creating a media atmosphere around the case – to draw attention to the attorney and their alleged cause of their client, rather than the facts of a case.

This is exactly what the Leaf Trading Company attorney has done by filing a lawsuit against Andrew Luck.  There has yet to be an actual controversy beyond a cease and desist letter sent to Leaf by Luck (at least this seems so based on the reading of the article).  Keep in mind, Attorney’s are charged with the responsibility of zealously representing the interests of their clients.  And while the color of this lawsuit falls inline with representing the interests of Leaf Trading Cards – that is to settle a potential legal dispute, the lawsuit cloaks itself under this guise, while at the same time, exploiting an oportunity.  Not an opportunity to win.  Not an opportunity to fairly and legitimately settle a dispute – there are different ways of going about that then filing a declaratory action – but to draw attention to the dispute.  It is not through a company press release that the public learned of this lawsuit, but rather through the attorney.

This lawsuit is all about exploiting the recent media attention of Andrew Luck as he enters the NFL Draft as the likely number one pick by the Indianapolis Colts.  And while, as stated, this isn’t uncommon to latch on to a bigger event to promote your own products or services, the way the announcement of this lawsuit was handled was clearly at the advantange of the attorney filing the lawsuit.  This is also his way of drumming up attention to what he does and he too is looking to exploit the media frenzy over the NFL Draft; that is, to draw attention to his professional status.  This, it seems to me, is why we have such a hard time as attorneys convincing the public we’re something other than bottom feeders.

In the normal course of a controversy or claim between two parties, it is the burden of the party making the claim to establish and prove that claim.  That is to say, this all started with a cease and desist letter from Luck and Luck is the party responsible for proving his claim – its not Leaf’s responsibility to make Luck prove his claim.  Rather, the two easiest things to do are 1) ignore the claim if you can prove internally your are on solid legal ground, or 2) seek some sort of (pre-litigated) negotiated settlement.

But that is not what happened here and people should take caution in the professionals they hire.  Certainly, there are occasions where by the nature of the case it is clear that it is going to be one that the media is interested in.  However and more likely, you’re case is not going to boil over into a media frenzy – even if the participants to the case happen to be of interest to the media.  But to force the matter to litigation, in a public forum, days before the NFL Draft, is akin to exploiting your client’s legal position for your own financial gain (or even simple public recognition that, in turn, will increase one’s financial gain).

And while I think I understand the nature of people and their desires fairly well, and while a case like this can definitely be colored in a way that shows your are zealously representing your client’s interest, the fact that it too serves an attorney’s own personal interest is all the reason that this lawsuit potentially creates a conflict of interest between the client and the attorney.  The mere suggestion of a conflict makes me think the filing of this lawsuit at this time and for these reasons is not consistent with truly representing your client’s best interest.

But it being opening day of the NFL Draft, I would like to take the shameless opportunity to congratulate Andrew Luck on his first pick and being drafted by the Indianapolis Colts – I’m a huge Colts fan and I hope this is the beginning of a fantastic rebuilding period for the Colts and successful career for Andrew Luck.  But I won’t be doing it by filing a lawsuit against him.

So far, there are no reports of other DUI pratrols that were set up to stop potential DUI drivers in the Maricopa County area.  Prior to St. Patrick’s day, www.azcentral.com reported that Peoria and other cities in the West Valley were expected to conduct vast DUI stops to target intoxicated drivers.

If you have been charged with a DUI or drug related charge stemming from a St. Patrick’s day enforcement stop, contact the Law Offices of Simon P. Kennedy at (480) 247-6137 to set up a free initial consultation to discuss your rights and options to defend you for these charges.  As always, we offer a free 1 hour initial consultation and we offer reasonable rates and flat fees for most criminal matters.  Payment plans are also available.

See the original story at www.azcentral.com

You can read the article at: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/10/20110210arizona-dui-bills-first-time-offenders-penalty.html

While passage of either bill would greatly ease the burdens of people convicted of a first time DUI, it does not give a free pass for a DUI conviction, nor do the bills proposed plan on limiting the language of the A.R.S  28-1381 or A.R.S. 28-1382.  Rather the bills look at reducing or making more lenient the penalties associated with a DUI conviction.

The first bill discussed is an attempt at ensuring that the other bill will not be passed.  The first bill, sponsored by Linda Gray, calls for a reduction in time that a person convicted of a DUI would be required to have an ignition interlock devised placed from 1 year to 6 months.  This would be a substantial reduction of the overall fees associated with a DUI conviction.  Currently, it costs roughly $120.00 to install the interlock device and $80.00 a month to pay for the monthly fee for the interlock device.  Reducing the requirement from 1 year to 6 months is thought to achieve the goal of reducing DUI related fatalities and teaching the person convicted of a DUI a lesson for their acts, while also cutting the overall cost almost in half.  The bill’s sponsor believe that this reduction will strike a balance between public safety and cost and I agree.

David Brunell Smith, the other bill’s sponsor, argues that an interlock device is financially unfair to first time DUI offenders.  He has proposed other bills based on financial reasons as well – one to create a house arrest system and one to ease the burdens of work release so that first time offenders do not suffer additional consequences (such as losing their job because of their inability to make their work schedule).

Arizona has some of the toughest law in the nation when it comes to DUI offenses.  If you’re charged with a DUI, it is always a good idea to consult with a DUI attorney to discuss your case.  Call Arizona DUI defense attorney Simon P. Kennedy for a free consultation regarding your DUI charge.  I always provide a free initial consultation to discuss your DUI case.

There is no reason that this person had to die, and my condolences to the family that lost a loved one today.  There is no reason in the world for a person to be doing doughnuts anywhere near a home, ever.  This fact was evident to the driver who took off and hid before police found and arrested him.

My thoughts and prayers are with a family who lost a loved one too soon.

You can access the article here: http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/11/30/20101130dui-case-drunk-to-keep-warm.html

The defense worked too!  Now obviously this is a special set of facts.  It’s very rare that a person is charge with a DUI in any other situation than a normal traffic stop – or a sting operation where cops wait near local bars and then start pulling people over at around the same time the bar closes and people start going home.   But in this instance, it appears as if there was enough time from the initial call to when the emergency crews showed up to at least place a reasonable doubt into the mind of the jurors as to when the Defendant actually began to drink.

Since his vehicle was not operational at the point he claims to have been drinking, he could not have been operating his vehicle at the time of his intoxication.  I do think that this story would have ended up differently if the accident involved more than just the Defendant’s vehicle – in all likelihood, he would have been convicted if the accident resulted in an injury to people either with him or in another vehicle.

Again, this is a very unique case, and this defense is not going to work most cases, but it is definitely an interesting defense.  Though, not one that will work in the majority of Arizona cases.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/11/19/20101119scottsdale-house-arrest-ankle-device-dui-cases.html

While it will never happen, Arizona legislature should give cities and counties the option to suspend ALL jail time under a first offense DUI plea agreement or sentencing order.  It could save the state millions of dollars without really taking away the bite of most of the current elements of a DUI plea agreement or sentencing order, and therefore, not taking a bite out of punishing and preventing DUIs.

It seems that Scottsdale is saving a ton of money in its trial run of using house arrest in DUI cases.  It appears that in the first 5 weeks of operation, the City of Scottsdale has save nearly $200,000.00 in jail costs by allowing people convicted of (generally) second DUI offenses or even first time Extreme DUI cases, the ability to serve some of their time under house arrest.

Scottsdale originally estimated that it would likely save around $500,000.00 a year, but already it looks like this program  is helping out the city and will far exceed expectations.

Now, just think if for first time DUI offenders instead of a minimum of 24 hours in jail with 9 days suspended upon completion of a successful drug counseling program that the city suspended all jail time in exchange for the already required counseling, interlock device, and MVD suspension, and fines.  When you add up all the factors of a DUI sentencing or plea agreement, the 24 hours in jail is probably the least burdensome.

Now, obviously I have to admit to the fact that I have never spent any time in prison and do imagine that if I had to spend 24 hours in jail, it would likely be 24 hours of hell.  But given the fact that such a substantial part of the jail sentence is suspended already, and given the fact that so much more of the DUI sentence is geared toward punitive retribution that does not make anyone’s sentence easy in any sense, that maybe the 24 hour jail time is something that we should reconsider and possibly do away with in the context of already substantial penalties and a crippled state economy.

Now Scottsdale officials have stated that they need time to evaluate the house arrest program and that 5 weeks is not a substantial time to evaluate the program.  I agree with this.  We need to spend some time seriously evaluating the cost/benefit of a house arrest, not only in terms of a governments budget but also in the interests of justice.

Nevertheless, I think the best thing that we as a state could do is to evaluate Scottsdale’s program and then to think of ways we can apply the concept to other DUI penalties.  If the 24 hour sentence does less for curbing future DUIs, then clearly we need to think of new ways to get people to rethink driving while under the influence.  Plus, rethinking those punishments, and particular doing away with any jail time upon successful completion of the other requirement of a first time DUI sentence, then the state would save a substantial amount of money and continue to reinforce the notion that DUIs will be punished, it won’t be an easy punishment (that is, it will affect your life in multiple ways), and continued violation of DUI laws would result in mandatory jail time.  I think, in that instance, the objective of the State in protecting the public from DUI drivers and crimes would still maintain its current integrity and at the same time streamline the system and save the state a substantial amount of money – such that the fines a person pays can actually go into the government’s general fund.

We all know the state uses the fines in the first place to fund certain activities, so let’s put that money into the general fund and use that money to help build up the state’s resources again…assuming the state won’t spend it all in defending hate based legislation…

Remember to call us whenever you have questions about DUIs or other crimes.  We provide a free one-hour initial consultation and are here to answer all of your questions.  Call us today at (480) 570-6591 or check out your Arizona DUI Defense Attorney here.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/realestate/articles/2010/11/14/20101114phoenix-real-estate-short-sale-flopping.html

I have to say I find the idea that banks are getting upset that real estate investors continue to find ways to profit in a down market incredulous.   If the banks want to authorize a sale of a home for more money than they are willing to accept on a short sale, they should find the buyers and stop trying to hide behind their own ethical blunders.

First off, the above article addresses that there are some entities out there (i.e., banks and lending institutions) that suppose short selling a home at once price and then selling it for a higher price is wrong and that if the bank or lending institution knew a buyer was willing to pay a higher amount, they would have sold the home for the higher amount.

Really?  Are these same banks who are on a warpath of foreclosures, who ignore loan modification requests from homeowners who are serious about their obligations and who are trying to make the best of their situation, who then offer, at the last minute, a chance for the homeowner to do a loan modification, but then forecloses on the home before the homeowner can even finish the loan modification packet, who continues to make the housing market worse by electing to proceed on foreclosures that continue to depress the housing market, who was the entity largely responsible for the housing market collapse in the first place?

You gotta be kidding me!

The simple answer, in my mind, is that banks, since they are not part of the continuing transaction in this “flopping” scenario, should not be entitled to advocate for industry regulators to look into so called unethical practices of real estate investors.  The banks clearly have a conflict of interest in this matter.  In fact, they should keep quite altogether!

here is how “flopping” works: a real estate investor finds individuals or families desperately looking to get out of their home without having to go through a foreclosure or bankruptcy.  Generally speaking, the home has become unaffordable to the homeowner.  The real estate investor spends substantial time, effort, and money to work out a negotiated price of the home that the bank will approve of – its called a short sale because it is a sale for less than what the homeowner owes on the note.  The real estate investor then has a buyer willing to pay an amount higher than the negotiated amount of the loan to the real estate investor, who can now close on the home.  This is not unethical, this is business, and it the best way to keep a housing market moving while increasing home values (not depressing them).  It allows upsidedown homeowners out of a bad situation and allows banks to clear out under-performing debts so that they can focus on higher performing investments.  Thus, everyone benefits.  Despite this, banks want to complain and insist that regulators prohibit this type of transaction.  

Let me just say this – no matter what, the banks and lending institutions will find ways to make money even if it seems like they are losing money.  They will always find new products and services to invest in and profit from…therefore, what looks like a loss on paper is really opportunity for the banks.  They just want their cake and your cake too (with interest).

Conveniently, we seem to have forgotten that banks were responsible for this mess in the first place – and it was the lack of a cohesive regulatory program monitoring banks and the products they devised that made all of this so easy.  Banks were lending money for homes based on inflated markets and a housing bubble that was absolutely unsustainable.  Lenders were actively seeking out people with primary mortgages or primary and secondary mortgages to sell them refinancing packages to ”help” them consolidate their mortgages and debt into one loan, one obligation, that allowed you to tap into a bit of the equity in your home to pay off consumer debts (i.e., credit card debt).  Without getting into how insane it is to transfer an unsecured debt into a secured one (we’ll talk about that in another post), suffice it to say, that banks were lending money based on an inflated housing market and fraudulent or unscrupulous appraisals that the market could not bear over the long term.  Along with “creative financing” (i.e., interest only loans, variable rate loans, pick your payment loans), it was impossible to keep the average homeowner from weathering the financial storm of a bursting bubble.  Not only that, these lenders were offering these same loans to the first time home buyer who literally could not afford the home they were about to purchase.  In fact, most of us could not afford the homes we were buying; home values had gotten too far out of place with what the average income could actually afford.  Nevertheless and despite growning evidence that banking executives knew this and still continued to push these types of loans for homes that were quite simply unaffordable, people could buy a ticking time bomb of a home for no money down….thank god it was at least no money down!

Now these same banks and lending institutions that refuse to work with people who have mortgages that are substantially more than the home is currently worth, are forcing people into two options that basically have the same weight for purposes of a person’s credit rating – short sale or foreclosure.  Let’s face it, one year out of the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression and people still cannot afford their homes. 

Real estate investors actively seek out people who have property worth less than their mortgages so they can help these home owners get out of a bad financial situation.  Investors spend upwards of 6 to 8 months negotiating a price the bank is willing take to sell the home.  The investor can either pay for this agreed upon amount on his/her own, or can find a buyer who is waiting in line to purchase the home from the investor for an amount the investor and the buyer agree to.  This is good business and what we should be encouraging, not preventing. 

It alleviates the problem of person having a home they can no longer afford and their need to get rid of it in one way or the other, not only for the homeowner, but for the bank as well.  From the bank’s perspective, negotiating a short sale with an investor or any other type of buyer is substantially better, economically speaking, than continuing to force every under-performing loan into foreclosure.  By agreeing to a short sale, the bank frees up funds for re-investment and will make more on the sale of the home than it would have by foreclosing on the home.   

It just blows my mind that banks and lending institutions should be allowed to complain in any sense about what investors are doing in the market.  Listen banks…if you would have worked with your homeowner on a loan modification, you would have likely resolved this problem in the first place.  But you didn’t (and don’t) want to go that route.  Rather, you insist on foreclosing as your primary remedy (oh yeah, we see that you’re starting to get in trouble for that too).  In this “flopping” scenario, you cry out that you are being treated unfairly.  But in these situations, you make more money, lose very little (in fact, nothing because you will re-invest and make more money off your investments), and instead of being the key problem to a depressed housing market, you actually help make it better by helping home values increase.  Of course, banks and lending institutions, probably by their by-law, are forbidden to make things better for people and the economy in general.

The banks cannot fathom that anyone other then them came up with a way to make money off of people in trouble.  Look, I am not saying that there are not people out there taking advantage of the system - those of us who can afford to pay our debts but simply choose not to.  The idea that some people who do not pay their mortgages even though they can is shameful.  Whenever you can afford to take care of your obligations you should.  But the economy over the last several years has left many of us in despair.  Lost jobs, reduced incomes, disappearing industries.  Times are tough for lots of us and for those of us who are homeowners who no longer can afford our home, a short sale is a good option to re-evaluate our particular financial situation. 

Real estate investors are trying to seize on an opportunity to help current homeowners get out of a house the homeowners can longer afford and find a buyer for the home that will allow the investor to make some money for their efforts.  If the banks have such a problem with this, why don’t they find their own buyers willing to pay more than what the bank is willing to accept for a short sale?  It seems ridiculous at best for banks and lending institutions to say that it is improper for anyone other than them to profit off the work it takes to keep property moving.  The banks and lending institutions cannot have it both ways.

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars defending insurance claims with the primary intent to protect their policy holder from an adverse judgment and the secondary intent to spend as little money as possible on a claim.  It seems counter intuitive that an insurance company would spend so much money trying to save money.  What people have to know is that an insurance companies operating budget is different than the insurance policy limits.  That is to say, what the insurance company spends protecting policies and policy limits comes from a different pot, so to speak.

When you purchase car insurance, you are purchasing a policy for a specified amount of money.  You are paying the insurance company a premium for them to protect your personal assets up to the limits of your policy.  Say you have a 15/30 policy.  This means that you and the insurance company agree that the costs and consequences from you causing an accident will be covered up to $15,000 per individual or $30,000 per accident (in case more than one person is hurt).  As a collateral benefit to having a car insurance policy, the insurance company will do everything in its power to settle the case and extinguish the claim for $15K or less so that you personally do not have to come up with any money out of your own pocket.

This “extra” benefit actually makes sense.  Generally speaking a person should buy as much insurance as they can afford.  If you can afford to purchase higher policy limits, that typically means you have more money and/or assets that need to be protected.  If you have a 50/100 policy, it is generally presumed that you make more money or own more assets than someone that has a 15/30 policy.  The insurance company assumes that a settlement at or within your policy will ensure that you will not have to pay any additional expenses related to an accident out of your own pocket (though this is not always the case and we’ll talk more about this in a later posting).

This is one reason insurance companies spend so many millions of dollars defending their policies.  Another reason is that insurance companies either employ or contract with insurance adjusters who review and value the claims they are presented.  The term adjuster means just that; a person who adjusts the value of the claim based on experience and what they believe to be the market value of a claim.  Thus, an insurance adjuster assigned to handle your claim is likely to reduce the overall value of the claim you submit in order to guard against unreasonably high medical expenses for injury claims.

But what constitutes unreasonable medical expenses is always an area of confusion for clients.  The truth is, you obtain medical care and treatment from trusted physicians, hospitals, and chiropractors.  These professionals provide the care of which they feel you are in need, based on their professional experience.  What would constitute a claim of unreasonable medical expenses would be that you, the patient, knew or should have known that the treatment proposed would be unreasonable.  This simply is not the case because you are not an expert in medical care or treatment.  Challenging these types of medical bills as being unreasonable, or in the terms of the insurance company – an overcharge, is permissible because the insurance company is responsible for the actual value of the injuries you sustain.

In terms of settling your claim, this makes little difference to you.  Of course the insurance company is not going to offer what you are asking for, nevertheless, they are responsible for the actual injuries, and their consequent medical treatment, for your injuries.  Yet, it is so frustrating to people who try to resolve their own claims with the specific intent to merely have their medical bills paid for.  There are a number of people who feel it is fair to have their medical bills paid and that is it.  They do not want anything more than that.

Nevertheless, insurance companies, even given fairly clear medical records and bills highlighting that an injury is due to an accident, and even when the bills are perfectly reasonable, will almost always adjust the value of the medical expenses down.  The adjuster will say something like, “We have evaluated the medical expenses and are prepared to accept $Xs,” which is almost always a percentage of the total medical expenses.  So what do you do?

For one, you can always continue to negotiate with the insurance company regarding what you consider to be a fair settlement.  Two, you can see how willing your medical providers will be in helping you out with a difficult situation.  Three, you can throw in the towel…well is that really an option?

You’ve come this far on your own and you can probably work this out with this insurance company.  Alternatively you can contact a personal injury attorney to help you out.  As a personal injury attorney, I can tell you that I prefer handling cases from the beginning because I am confident that I can obtain substantially more on a claim than I can if I am brought on at the last minute.

But…a good personal injury attorney is going to want to help you not because of the ultimate value of the case, but because they see that you are being treated unfairly.  We know that insurance companies have ample authority to settle cases for values higher than what they are offering you.  We also know that if we were to litigate the case (i.e, file a lawsuit to protect your rights), there are certain procedural rules that prevent insurance companies from making some of the arguments they make to unrepresented claimants (an injured person who never hired an attorney).  A good personal injury attorney is going to know that despite the obstacles that have been put in your way, maybe some of them even created by you, there is still a good reason to take on clients that have had a bad run at handling their own claim.  Though we can never guarantee that your will get a better offer if you hire us, we can say that we have additional tools that we can use to help you obtain the best settlement of your claim as we possibly can.  And, of course, we aren’t afraid of filing a lawsuit to do that.

If you have found yourself in a similar situation, don’t worry, you can always talk to an attorney, and usually that initial consultation will be free.  This consultation will help you understand your rights, and will help you understand whether hiring an attorney is actually in your best interest.  In fact, I provide a 1 hour free consultation to help you understand what your rights are and I can help you identify your specific legal needs, whether you do, in fact, need an attorney, and if it happens to be an area outside of my practice areas, I can help refer you to an attorney that will be able to help you get through your frustration and find some type of resolution with your claim.  Feel free to browse my site at www.spklawfirm.com.  I am always thankful to speak with individuals and to help them understand their situation.  You are under no obligation to hire me simply by reviewing my site and I hope that it can provide useful information.  Likewise, if you want to schedule a free consultation, you are also under no obligation to hire me at that meeting.  I would rather you do the right thing for you, than to hire me because you feel compelled for some reason or another.

Remember, all is not lost on your claim.  It is frustrating and it feels as if all is lost, but it isn’t.

There is a saying that the type of justice you receive is the type of justice you can afford.  This is, sadly, true in many instances.   But attorneys often have a sense of entitlement to a certain type of lifestyle and, therefore, they tend to have a certain type of entitlement to a fee that seems completely reasonable to them, while ignoring the fact that justice also requires the client receiving fair, honest legal advice and representation that is proportional to what they can afford.

Our goal at this firm is to ensure that our clients receive the best legal representation despite the fact that they cannot afford to hire the most expensive attorney.  You see claims all the time about attorneys being the “best” criminal defense attorney.  I am not sure how a firm or an attorney can make this claim without winning every single case.  But this simply doesn’t happen too often.  Rather, access to justice and being able to afford an attorney that will make sure that all portions of your case are handled correctly is what makes for an excellent attorney.  It is the care and dedication to each case that makes the difference in the firm you retain to help you through your legal problem. 

At my firm, we concentrate on evaluating your case from the beginning.  This means we examine and study your initial contact with law enforcement to see if law enforcement happened to violate one of your constitutionally protected rights in their investigation of a possible crime or offense.  And this is why it is important for you to hire an attorney when you have been charged with a DUI or other type of crime.  You have constitutionally protected rights that sometimes you don’t really know exists or if you think you know what the rights are, there is some case out there that actually limits your rights in some way.  An attorney can help you understand these things and can help you understand them in the context of your case.

In many DUI cases, the State is able to prove its case against you.  This is so because when you are initially stopped, the investigating officer is likely to require you to submit to breath and blood test.  Nevertheless, you still have fundamental rights and obtaining counsel to review your case – the stop, the legality for the stop, the ensuing investigation, etc., to ensure that all your rights are protected.  You have heard from various people that a criminal defense attorney simply holds your hand through the criminal sentencing process.  This is, in part, true, but completely undervalues what you get when you hire my firm.  We analyze your case, we communicate with the prosecutor of your case to attempt to work out a fair plea when we know that the State will be able to prove its case.  This analysis, combined with comminication with the prosecutor, and communicating with you about your case, is the key reason you need to hire an attorney – to make sure your rights are protected.

At the Law Offices of Simon P. Kennedy, we provide an aggressive defense and a very reasonable fee.  What this means is that we are going to go through every step of your case to see what legal grounds we have to get your case dismissed – and we will honestly advise you when we think that there is problem with the way the officer stopped you or if any of your constitutional rights were violated.  This is something that no “DUI Handbook” can do for you.

We appear either with you or on your behalf at any court hearing set to hear your case.  We will discuss your case in depth with the prosecutor and we attempt to negotiate the best plea bargain on your behalf.  That is to say, if your case is one where it appears that the state can meet its substantial burden of proving that you, in fact, did operate a vehicle while driving under the influence beyond a reasonable doubt, then we will work hard at exploring plea bargain options – to minimize the overall affect of a DUI conviction on your record.

You may be wondering why an attorney is necessary to represent you when you hear from family and friends that the prosecutor is just going to offer you the same plea bargain that everyone else is offered.  This is simply not true.  Very rarely will you see two cases alike, such that the State is required to offer these similar cases the same plea bargain.  In fact, Arizona Statutes contemplate varying levels of sentencing on each DUI case.  Retaining my firm will help ensure that you receive the best plea bargain available or a complete dismissal of the charges brought against you.   At it’s core, my firm believes that our client needs the best legal counsel possible, that each case is unique, and that you, the client, understands how all the facts of your case lead us to counsel you as to how you should proceed throughout your DUI case.

This is probably a question with a self-evident answer for some and for others this may be purely rhetorical (i.e., “really, why do a I need an attorney?”).

The simple answer is probably because you are entering a world of legal rights and responsibilities and to go it alone could be disastrous to the overall strength of your case.

Now in the context of this blog, we are accident attorneys. That is, we represent people who have been involved in auto-accidents, slip and fall accidents, dog bite cases, motorcycle accidents, medical malpractice…the list could go on and on because a personal injury attorney represents clients who have been injured in some way and who feel that another person is responsible for their injuries.

Basically stated, a person is negligent under Arizona law when they cause another person to be injured (either by some action or inaction on the part of the responsible party); action or inaction causes an injury when, in the absence of the action or inaction, the injuries would not have occurred.

When a person is found negligent for causing another person injury, they are responsible for paying the injured person for their out-of-pocket medical expenses, lost wages, loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, and other types of losses that result from injury accidents.

Generally speaking, we pay for auto insurance, home owner’s insurance, commercial insurance, renter’s insurance, etc., in order to divert the risk that we might cause another person injury onto the insurance company. Insurance provides a reliable source of payment for the above expenses and damages that an injured person sustains due to another person’s negligence.

That is to say, we pay for insurance to protect our own personal assets from having to be used to compensate an injured person; either out of our paychecks or by liens on our personal or business assets, insurance protects us from those types of payment. The insurance company will step into our shoes and handle the claims made against us and ensure that we are not personally responsible for any payment over and beyond the coverages we purchase from the insurance company.

And this is why you need an attorney.

Dealing with an insurance company can be complicated and the insurance company will not properly advise you on your rights and responsibilities. Their sole function is to ensure that their customer will not have to pay more than a reasonable amount for damages and that their customer will not have pay out of pocket for the injuries and damages they cause.

Quite simply, the insurance company is primarily concerned with protecting their customer, and you, the injured person, is not their primary concern. This actually makes sense. However, insurance companies are very sophisticated companies and use a combination of tactics to lure injured people into a false sense of security and confidence in dealing with them directly.

First, tonight, watch TV for about 30 minutes and count the number of commercials you see for insurance. Listen to what they are selling. Value, trust, concern for your money, quickly taking care of you, never letting you down, etc. The list goes on and the marketing is two fold. By creating brand recognition, these companies create trust in purchasing their products and trust in non-customers by the familiarity of the name of the company when they have to deal with that company because of an accident.

Second, by and large, the biggest amount of money insurance companies pay out in a given year is for property damage. Therefore, the fastest way that an insurance company can build trust in you, a person who will likely be making a claim for the injuries you have sustained, is at this initial stage when it tries its best to make sure you get your car fixed as soon as possible.

At this stage, the insurance company promptly contacts you frequently and uses this time to build trust. “Sorry you were in an accident, is everything okay?” “How can we help you?” “Just wanted to update you on your car.” And the killer, “Were you injured at all in this accident?” This last question is the crux of your case. Too often after an accident, you are still in a state of shock. You are not sure if you are injured and, therefore, you might say, “No, I am fine.” Then as the shock wears off, you start to feel sore, stiff, and likely have headaches or some other type of pain that wasn’t there before the accident.

Often times, the insurance company will make an offer to settle the case for a nominal amount of money and you still do not know the extent of your injuries. For the insurance company, this matters little. It wants you to settle as soon as possible. It wants to get out of a claim for injuries faster than you know are injured. More devastating is the fact that the insurance company cares little what your actual medical expenses are at this point.

It sounds nice, it sounds convenient, and it sounds painless. Why not just settle this case and be done with everything?

The simple answer is because accidents are never this simple. The insurance company is responsible and required to reimburse you for medical expenses resulting from the negligence of their customer (their insured). But if it can get you to settle before you know the full extent of your injuries, it is off the hook for any amounts of medical expenses incurred after you settle the claim.

Moreover, what happens if you settle the claim and the persistent low grade pain you were sure would go away is now starting to tingle up and down your spine? What happens when the pain does not go away? You settled the claim, but now you are certain that you need medical care. When you contact our offices, we ensure that you also contact the appropriate medical provider to evaluate you and to determine the extent of your injuries. We protect your rights. We ensure that you seek appropriate medical care. We ensure that your case is properly handled to make sure you have the best chance of recovering the full compensation you deserve.

Very often it can take several hours after an accident before you know that you have been injured in some way. Very often it can take 12 or more hours before the shock of the accident and the adrenalin stop pumping and the actual feeling of soreness, pain, and injury start to set in.

Some clients are concerned about not having health insurance or whether their health insurance will cover their injuries. We will make sure that you evaluated by medical professionals that are willing to wait for payment, but who will ensure, nevertheless, that you still receive appropriate medical care.

Moreover, we obtain all the evidence in the case on your behalf. We obtain all the medical records and bills, witness statements, police reports, etc., to make sure that you focus on recovering from the accident and to not worry about extra issues that will take your time and energy to collect. Most importantly, we deal with the insurance company in attempting to resolve your claim quickly and we will advise you every step of the way as to whether we think the insurance company is dealing fairly with us on your claim. Truth be told, no matter how hard we negotiate with an insurance company, in rare instances we have to file a lawsuit to make sure you receive fair compensation for your injuries. But when you hire our firm from the beginning of your case, you can be sure that we will always pursue the best course of action.

Now with so many attorneys in the Phoenix metro area, why should you choose the Law Offices of Simon P. Kennedy, PLLC to represent you?

This firm does not force you to settle your case when we think it is under-valued or potentially unfair to you. We leave that to the larger firms that discount their fees or spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on advertising their aggressive representation, all the while forgetting to mention that their aggression is usually pointed toward you…not the insurance company. We take all of our client’s cases seriously and make sure that we give you the best legal advice we can based on our experience in handling personal injury cases. We make sure that your rights and responsibilities are protected and that your injury case, from beginning to end, is handled correctly.

We are a small firm and our clients have names, not file numbers. The attorneys and legal assistants work together on your case, but you are always encouraged to discuss your case with an attorney, no matter what stage your case is in. Additionally, we always offer a free initial consultation with an attorney who will evaluate your case honestly. Our goal is to not only maximize your recovery, but to be your greatest source of support during an often trying time.

Call us at (480) 570-6591 to set up your free initial consultation.

Thank you,

Simon Kennedy, Esq.